Open versus endoscopic septoplasty: a single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND

A deviated septum can be corrected by either a conventional "open" or endoscopic approach. Controversy exists regarding comparative outcomes between these two techniques. Our objective was to compare the two according to subjective and objective criteria.

STUDY

DESIGN

Prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.

METHODS

Over a 6-month period, all patients diagnosed with a septal deviation meeting strict inclusion/exclusion criteria were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to either the conventional or the endoscopic group. Outcome measures included surgical time, intraoperative complications, and pre- and postoperative data from the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) questionnaire. Chi-square and t-tests were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients were enrolled in the study: 32 in the endoscopic group and 31 in the conventional group. There were subjective postoperative improvements in the NOSE scores across all participants and within both groups (endoscopic: preoperative mean score  =  14.7, postoperative mean score  =  7.4, p < .05; conventional: preoperative mean score  =  15.2, postoperative mean score  =  6.3, p < .05), with no differences found between groups (p  =  .61). However, objective outcomes such as operative time (p < .001) and intraoperative complications (p  =  .01) favoured the endoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

The endoscopic approach for septoplasty may be considered superior to the traditional approach for the correction of septal deviation.